• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The New Socialists

Good read.

[h=1]A Clinton-era centrist Democrat explains why it’s time to give democratic socialists a chance[/h]
[h=2]“The baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left.”[/h]
It’s not often that someone in this policy debate — or, frankly, any policy debate — suggests that their side should lose. So I reached out to DeLong to dig into the reasons for his position: Why does he believe that neoliberals’ time in the sun has come to an end?


The core reason, DeLong argues, is political. The policies he supports depend on a responsible center-right partner to succeed. They’re premised on the understanding that at least a faction of the Republican Party would be willing to support market-friendly ideas like Obamacare or a cap-and-trade system for climate change. This is no longer the case, if it ever were.


“Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy,” DeLong notes. “And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No, they fucking did not.”


The result, he argues, is the nature of the Democratic Party needs to shift. Rather than being a center-left coalition dominated by market-friendly ideas designed to attract conservative support, the energy of the coalition should come from the left and its broad, sweeping ideas. Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to improve ideas on the left. This, he believes, is the most effective and sustainable basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

From the interview:

[h=4]Brad DeLong[/h] We were certainly wrong, 100 percent, on the politics.
Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy. He’s all these things not because the technocrats in his administration think they’re the best possible policies, but because [White House adviser] David Axelrod and company say they poll well.
And [Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel and company say we’ve got to build bridges to the Republicans. We’ve got to let Republicans amend cap and trade up the wazoo, we’ve got to let Republicans amend the [Affordable Care Act] up the wazoo before it comes up to a final vote, we’ve got to tread very lightly with finance on Dodd-Frank, we have to do a very premature pivot away from recession recovery to “entitlement reform.”
All of these with the idea that you would then collect a broad political coalition behind what is, indeed, Mitt Romney’s health care policy and John McCain’s climate policy and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy.
And did George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years?
No, they fucking did not. No allegiance to truth on anything other than the belief that John Boehner, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell are the leaders of the Republican Party, and since they’ve decided on scorched earth, we’re to back them to the hilt. So the politics were completely wrong, and we saw this starting back in the Clinton administration.
Today, there’s literally nobody on the right between those frantically accommodating Donald Trump, on the one hand, and us on the other. Except for our brave friends in exile from the Cato Institute now trying to build something in the ruins at the [centrist] Niskanen Center. There’s simply no political place for neoliberals to lead with good policies that make a concession to right-wing concerns.
[h=4][/h]
Click to expand...
 
Might be talking to myself here, but just in case others care or are interested, DSA sent out a poll to it's membership today on whether to endorse Bernie Sanders, members have one week to respond, and our leadership, the NPC, will consider and debate a motion to endorse at a March 21st meeting.

There seems to be considerable disagreement within our organization on two things:
1) Should we endorse Bernie Sanders?
2) Should we endorse now or should we wait until our national convention in August?

I voted no on endorsing in the poll, and signed a petition for the endorsement vote to be held in August.

Here is Birmingham DSA's statement:

 
Never gonna happen here bud.

You can arrange the name however you want but it’s the same warmed over bullshit it ever was.

Sad commentary on your so-called education that they skull fucked you like they did.



Good evening :)
 
There is not really a good place to post this, but I thought this was as good as anywhere: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/surprising-truth-about-roosevelts-new-deal/584209/

It's about a 10 minute read, the overall point is that the FDR New Deal was not just a bunch of tax-funded handouts but also a creative re-engineering of the capitalist system. FDR's team created new capitalist structures to drive rural electrification and housing investment, among other things. These investments were usually backed by government guarantees and expertise but not paid for by taxpayer dollars. Instead, the government found a way to get capital off the sidelines and invested in socially valuable avenues. Seems like we could use more of that in the Green New Deal. One can imagine similar programs for solar and wind power, for example. Of course the petro lobbyists and Cato institute puritans will still scream about "government picking winners" and Solyndra etc., but I think most Americans would prefer these mechanisms.
 
MHBDemon said:
Might be talking to myself here, but just in case others care or are interested, DSA sent out a poll to it's membership today on whether to endorse Bernie Sanders, members have one week to respond, and our leadership, the NPC, will consider and debate a motion to endorse at a March 21st meeting.

There seems to be considerable disagreement within our organization on two things:
1) Should we endorse Bernie Sanders?
2) Should we endorse now or should we wait until our national convention in August?

I voted no on endorsing in the poll, and signed a petition for the endorsement vote to be held in August.
Click to expand...

What's the process if the decision is put off until the national convention? Do they debate and vote at the convention or does it go back to a vote from all members?
 
avalon said:
What's the process if the decision is put off until the national convention? Do they debate and vote at the convention or does it go back to a vote from all members?
Click to expand...

Chapters select delegates to go to the national convention. Chapters get 1 delegate per 51 members. I'm not totally sure, but I'm guessing a resolution to endorse would be debated and voted on to endorse at the convention. People say that we lose something by waiting until August, but I haven't heard a good argument on what we lose. I think there is some concern that it would suck up all the time at the convention that we wouldn't get much else done, but this is an important enough decision and will determine the direction of our organization, that I think it's worth it.
 
Deacon923 said:
There is not really a good place to post this, but I thought this was as good as anywhere: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/surprising-truth-about-roosevelts-new-deal/584209/

It's about a 10 minute read, the overall point is that the FDR New Deal was not just a bunch of tax-funded handouts but also a creative re-engineering of the capitalist system. FDR's team created new capitalist structures to drive rural electrification and housing investment, among other things. These investments were usually backed by government guarantees and expertise but not paid for by taxpayer dollars. Instead, the government found a way to get capital off the sidelines and invested in socially valuable avenues. Seems like we could use more of that in the Green New Deal. One can imagine similar programs for solar and wind power, for example. Of course the petro lobbyists and Cato institute puritans will still scream about "government picking winners" and Solyndra etc., but I think most Americans would prefer these mechanisms.
Click to expand...

Great read. IMHO, this is more aligned to the US I want to see...taking advantage of our vast resources (crude, technological, intellectual, etc) to shape capitalism for the collective, social good.
 
MHBDemon said:
Chapters select delegates to go to the national convention. Chapters get 1 delegate per 51 members. I'm not totally sure, but I'm guessing a resolution to endorse would be debated and voted on to endorse at the convention. People say that we lose something by waiting until August, but I haven't heard a good argument on what we lose. I think there is some concern that it would suck up all the time at the convention that we wouldn't get much else done, but this is an important enough decision and will determine the direction of our organization, that I think it's worth it.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It is interesting that the second link ends with the writer saying they'll run for delegate and voting against endorsement. I can see how the discussion and decision could take over everything. I'll be interested to see how it all shakes out.
 
you are a clueless fool, a lube who tries to smear people with whom he disagrees with fascism, you have nothing better to say, you have no idea what you are talking about, pathetic
 
We have no idea what sailor’s views actually are since he never articulates anything other than criticism on the hottest button Murdoch-inflamed issues that he latches on to from right wing sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top